ha, no they wouldn't agree on that at all. Half would scream "No new taxes", and half would scream "States Rights". Remember that the TEA partiers are republicans too. And "States Rights" are the only reason they gotten their last two presidents into office with less than half the vote. Good luck trying to weaken that argument.
I know it's nice to pretend that a party has it's shit in order, but there's variance. The world isn't black and white, and political parties are wide umbrellas with a bunch of different people vaguely consorting together. I mean, I doubt you're a republican with This how you differ from most republicans on other issues. Democrats have the same issue, probably worse. But hey, give it a shot. Write your rep and see how much traction you get.
Jaywalking in NYC is rarely prosecuted therefore jaywalking in NYC isn't a problem.
Yeah... You're talking about "the Heritage Foundations's" lament that there are more than 1000 convictions. But notice that sums up ALL the past elections in the "last few years". In CO, the oldest is in 2005. So... 1000 convictions over a decade+ of election is... wait for it... "~an incident rate between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent". That's not convictions, that's suspicions as well. 0.0025% of the votes did not affect elections. As much as it galls me, Trump won that election because enough people in the right states voted for him.
Election tampering has happened for generations (Vote Early. Vote Often.) But you think it doesn't occur anymore?
Slavery happened for generations too. We've gotten better.
Are you concerned about who makes voting machines? How they're counted?
Yes, introducing new procedues opens the door for new vectors. As a conservative, you should be on board with this. New things are scary. Old ways are tried and true. While we are more than technically advanced enough to have online voting (or even electronic voting), the people in charge are laughably bad at technical implementations.
Then you ought to be also concerned about who votes. It's simple.
Sure. And it is federally illegal to commit that fraud and the safeguards we have against it APPEAR TO BE WORKING. In a similar fashion, planes running into each other is a serious concern, but we have a system in place to keep that from happening and so far no one is trying to get all the air-traffic controllers fired because they're killing thousands every year. Because they aren't.
Present a state issued ID in order to vote. Are you worried about poor people? Then make these IDs free.
I'd be down for that. But try to give anything away for free and the republicans will choke you out and whine a storm about how it will cost them the price of 1/8th of a new fighter jet that they could have bought with that money. And trying to standardize anything into a natitonal ID gets them screaming about state's rights. And I honestly agree with them there, it's a power play by the feds that they don't have the authority for. I'm not a huge fan of having to have papers to exist. Papers, papers please... papers. If you wanted to go full dystopian hellscape, we might as well use the off-the-books database of biometrics and facial recognition that the FBI, CIA, and NSA all have likely built up in parallel.
From the AMA, as far as I can tell, Matt King (The voice actor for Illidan in 2002 Warcraft 3) just really likes the comic and pushed everyone into it. Apparently he has connections?
They're asking half a mil. I don't see it happening. I'll eat crow if they make it, but... yeah.
What? Seriously? They know this guy is crazy right? I mean, hey, tortured artists are a thing, but he had a breakdown. I guess he's still going strong, and when it comes to being mentally functional that's really all that matters. But this is a bad idea anyway. I mean, the entire premise of the comic is playing off of tropes that are generally only known to D&D players. Which, just in case I have to remind the geek crowd, is still a nitch thing. It's hella more common these days, but it's still not common. And it's not just D&D tropes, it's subverting those tropes. How many audience members out in the general public are going to be bored with standard D&D? And hell, it's based on a previous version of D&D. A previous version of the previous version of D&D. And it touches on some... well... taboo subjects that will never make it to prime-time TV. And the side-arc with the secondary heroes has never been coherent.
You're conflating "Freedom of Speech" with "the first amendment". Yes, the first amendment limits what the government can do, and how much they can limit your right to free speech. But "Freedom of Speech" is an ideal that came out of the Enlightenment and pre-dates our government. It's not just something for someone else to uphold. I'm against censorship even when it's not the government doing it.
No one is forced to read your post. You're not guaranteed anyone will read it. But if Slashdot simply black-listed and shadow-banned any post that mentioned "first amendment" then that'd be bloody bullshit and I'd feel betrayed and ditch slashdot. No one is forcing me to come here after all.
Insightful as FUCK about the town square portion. Bravo dude.
It's their servers, but I'm not a fan of censorship. I'd like to see some sort of "truth in advertising" clause where Reddit, facebook, and news comment sections are expected to be "public squares" with user comments. And anyone advertising themselves as such have to adhere to.... respecting the first amendment in that regard.
Also, there's a spectrum of censorship that ranges from black-bagging anyone violating thought-crime to frowning a little while you listen. Self-moderating systems where the masses are expected to downvote trolls IS a form of censorship.... but you know what? It's not that bad.
The problem with regulation is that there's a billion different ways to screw it up, and frankly, we can't trust the people writing it. They're massively out of touch. Or worse, they trust the industry lobbyists to explain things to them. And more often than not, they just take a proposed list of regulations from the established industry players and turn around and propose it as a bill. And of course that garbage is going to be geared towards keeping the established players exactly where they are and to discourage competition.
eh, a free market can exist with competition. If any of the players start to become dominant, or they all start colluding together, that's when competition dies, the market becomes locked-in, and the only thing stopping abuse is.... benevolence?
I mean, we need to stop them from.... murdering each other and blatantly thievery. But past the basics, anarchy is actually a pretty nice state for business. The problem with anarchy is that it's unstable as hell and eventually someone wins the rat-race. Late-stage capitalism has a lot in common with feudalism with markets instead of land-ownership. And eventually all the conglomerates will eat each other and we'll be left with just one, or a handful that refuse to compete with each other.
Matters of sovereignty shouldn't be in the hands of business from the get-go. No corporate armies. Natural monopolies need regulation. Any other monopolies need Shermans hammer to bust them up. But otherwise? Hey, capitalism works GREAT. At least better than the alternatives
Frederick the Great might have offered a sum of money. But people now a days would wonder why it's taking the players a second to make a move when it should be completing multiple games a second.
I have absolutely zero clue about what goes into commentating on a game of Go, other than the scoring rules are weird. You've got a point about people being lead into scenarios where they give funny commentary, there are real differences between AI and human players. I imagine it's the difference between how one naturally walks and how neural nets learn to walk. But eventually it reaches an optimum solution, which is how converging evolution happens. Like how whale (a mammal) fins look a lot like shark (a fish) fins.
The story I heard was a guy experimenting with self-programming FPGA, just like you said. But one of designs had a bunch of gates completely unconnected to anything. He removed them and... it stopped worked. Turns out the FPGA had a hardware flaw and the self-learning mechanism incorporated the flawed behavior into it's design.
Right now, all these assistants behave like selfish employees who think they can protect their jobs by holding vital expertise or passwords close to their chests.
You mean like every other form of business software?
Eventually , the data that runs the voice assistant business is going to have to be standardized."
That's like saying that eventually the data that runs between the hardware and applications is going to have to be standardized.
I mean, that's a nice dream, but the OS war rages on. And frankly, as long as it's a business.... I don't think we want anyone to win. Even in the OSS environment, Ubuntu started to be everyone's default suggestion.... and then they forced Unity down everyone's throat in an attempt to make a phone.
So. To re-iterate: Competition good. And of course they'll do what they can to stop their users from switching to competition.
Just a shot from the hip, but I'll bet living in 0.17g or 0.38g would have effects somewhat like 83% and 62% of what Scott Kelly described. I mean, I have SOME clue.
But... Al Gore and Arnold Shrwartzenwhatever told me the debate was over.
The debate between rational and credible people over whether or not global warming is real and happening is over.
The debate between rational and credible people over whether or not AGW is real and happening is over.
The debate over how bad it's going to be and how soon is on going.
The debate over, "so what do we do about it?" is alive and well with a bunch of shitty non-solutions, ludicrously expensive maybe-solutions, and a handful of steps in the right direction.
It's not just the "deniers" that want to stop the research.
Give some examples otherwise you're full of shit.
If the politicians were serious about an "all the above" solution to solving the problems of CO2 producing fuels then they'd be funding research into nuclear power, fission and fusion. Since they are not I must conclude that global warming is not a problem.
False presumption. You think one of the solutions is fission and fusion power. Not everyone is on board with that.
Which is it? Is global warming an end of life event that can only be averted by eliminating CO2 production? Or, is nuclear power such a greater threat that we'd rather see all life end from global warming first?
False dichotomy and hyperbole.
If we can wait for solar power and "giga-batteries" to replace coal then global warming doesn't seem like an immediate problem.
We... MIGHT want to "wait for solar power and batteries". Solar power seems like a step in the right direction.
And... yes, if we can reduce coal and oil usage, then... maybe we'll halt global warming and things won't be so bad. We're already in the middle of a mass extinction event... and climate change is already giving some places weather they're not used to, so California is on fire and hurricanes are getting places they typically don't go. But "less bad than people worried about".
when asked just how "trammeled" [capitalism] needs to be.
"trammeled"? Well that's a new one. But capitalism needs to be regulated in when there is a natural monopoly that keeps one established player (or a non-competing oligarchy) from having to compete with other businesses. Without competition, there is no free market and capitalism doesn't work. Unless you've been willfully ignorant you would have heard this any time any sort of communist, socialist, democrat, or rational economist responded to your ranting.
Unnatural monopolies that form from abusive practices (pretty much anything that raises the bar to entry) or market dominance likewise need to be regulated to the point practically being a government agency, or busted up into competing businesses.
Capitalism works GREAT... when there's competition and a free market. There is no free market for justice. There is no free market for right of way on the river. There is no free market for fusion power research.
Health care is a mess because of government intervention
Health care is a mess for a lot of reasons. One of them is because insurance companies started messing with the prices. They demanded lower prices for their customers because "they brought in so much business". So hospitals charged them less, and everyone else more. And as soon as people started spending Other People's Money, they stopped caring about the cost of things. Now any price-tag next to any medical service or supplies is complete fabrication. Obamacare was a big attempt to fix stuff, but it was mostly health insurance reform. It fixed some stuff, but brought in other issu
You're assuming, in turn, that "good" and "bad" are some sort of global absolutes.
What's good for the psycho-killer is bad for everyone else. What's good for the US trade deficit is a bad day for China's secretary of trade.
Also there are things that are good in the short term that are bad in the long term, like eating a bunch of candy. And things that suck in the short term, but are good in the long term, like EVERY ADULT DECISION.
Telling people the truth is good, for them, in the long run, on average.
BUT. Yeah dude, I wholly agree. Banning false speech is way too damn close to banning "false" speech and even at it's best it would just leave people vulnerable to charlatans. I think populaces build up immunities to.... bullshit lies and develop a healthy sense of skepticism. Part of growing up is learning that the toy isn't quite as awesome as the advertising makes it out to be. Part of growing up is learning that there's no real difference between that and campaign speeches.
Before anyone cries "free speech must always be free," let me qualify the question. Under a myriad of different internet sites and blogs are these click-through adverts that promise...
Dude, ALL advertising is built upon the basis of misleading bullshit and a sack of lies built with the goal of separating you from your money. There is no need to add the little quantifier of "on the internet".
Is deliberately misleading people Free Speech? Annoyingly yes. Because if the powers that be deem your speech to be "Not True"(tm) then they can silence whomever they wish. And THAT leads to sociological issues. The sort where it all burns down.
The concept of "bu bu but people COULD DIE" isn't nearly convincing enough to override* sovereignty issues. People poison and kill themselves through ignorance all the time. That's not a reason to take away people's ability to participate in civic duties.
*I wish I could use the term "trump" as a verb, but sadly the term has been... overridden.
. . . And what is this comment-bait doing on slashdot?
We HAVE been here before though. The industrial revolution automated away a lot of skilled labor. And... that represents about the worst-case scenario: A ton of suddenly poor people riot and smash a lot of looms. The factory owners get the nobles to send the army to go shoot them. The rabble backs down and suffers 3 generations of soul-crushing unemployment and poverty. Hopefully we can do better this time: steering kids towards jobs that will actually exist when they come of age, retraining existing workers, and early retirement for those over the hill (hopefully with enough savings to last).
UBI makes sense if the existing welfare programs become too cumbersome and expensive to operate. UBI would be an ALTERNATIVE to all those various welfare programs. And a near equivalent to UBI would be to increase the standard deduction and make a standard credit on everyone's tax forms.
But we don't want to make it permanent. There will be other jobs. Things people want, and therefore will pay other people to get/do for them. Hell, there are people being paid to... make videos of themselves playing games..... Now, apparently I'm old and out of touch. But this is the sort of job that I didn't expect to exist. For whatever reason we still pay people to play football. It makes about as much sense. But while the transition period caused by automation can be painful for a lot of people, we don't want a caste of people who live on the dole. That's doomed to fail the moment another nation out-competes us.
As I understand, "weak" AI would be an AI (the real deal) that is as intelligent as a human.
Nope. Weak AI is literally any sort of decision made by a computer. Liiiiiike, the sad little goomba in Super Mario that reverses direction when he hits a ledge. That's "weak AI". Or "soft AI". The threshold is REALLY low for qualifying as weak AI. But it's also includes impressive stuff like voice recognition, chess programs, and self-driving cars. Anything that limits the task to a specific function and puts a boundary of what the AI has to deal with is weak AI.
The alternative is "strong" or "Hard" AI, otherwise known as Artificial general intelligence, which can solve all problems. The same hardware/software/whatnot could be thrown at any problem, from voice recognition, to driving a car, to figuring out when a goomba should reverse directions, and it could solve each of those.
To have a computer be "as intelligent as a human" it's generally accepted that we'd need strong AI.
That said... how fast can you multiply 2356246246 X 9831716? Because I'm pretty sure a $0.50 computer can beat you. So in that aspect, it's MORE intelligent than you. And so the question comes down to how do we measure intelligence. And the answer is "Badly".
It's REALLY not a race between AI and human intelligence. The two things are orthogonal. They just work differently. Right now there's a set of problems that computers are HELLA better than people at, and there's a set or problems that computers have troubles with. Typically where it takes intuition, creativity, or "lateral thinking". But computers are edging out humans at certain tasks we used to beat them at.
Artificial General Intelligence doesn't exist yet. They've been trying since the 70's. But it's a really hard problem. Super hard. It's sci-fi at this point.
if we ever get in the way of its goals
What's the goal of the Google search engine? hmm? It's fun to personify it but at the end of the day it's goal is what Google corporate tells it it's goal is. And it's goal is to find me pictures of cats on the Internet.
Even if we make an AGI some day, it's going to have the goals that it's programmed with. There isn't going to be any sort of magical "awakening". Hollywood has ruined so many people's idea of what is and isn't AI. It's pretty terrible.
A computer would do anything it has to, to satisfy achieving its goals.
So would a corporation. Typically their goal is to make money. They've got a LOOOONG history of doing anything to achieve that. So far, there's mixed results, but overall they're probably a good idea.
A parrot repeating back words is a parlor trick. And everything you or I do isn't so much more advanced.
AI is any sort of self-learning software. That can be anything from learning how to play tic-tac-toe to making medical diagnosis. Just because one of those things seems a lot simpler doesn't change the classification of software that performs the task. You're alive, but so are bacteria. Same sort of complexity difference.
Hollywood has ruined so many people on the idea of what is and isn't AI.
Slashdot Mirror
ha, no they wouldn't agree on that at all. Half would scream "No new taxes", and half would scream "States Rights". Remember that the TEA partiers are republicans too. And "States Rights" are the only reason they gotten their last two presidents into office with less than half the vote. Good luck trying to weaken that argument.
I know it's nice to pretend that a party has it's shit in order, but there's variance. The world isn't black and white, and political parties are wide umbrellas with a bunch of different people vaguely consorting together. I mean, I doubt you're a republican with This how you differ from most republicans on other issues. Democrats have the same issue, probably worse. But hey, give it a shot. Write your rep and see how much traction you get.
Jaywalking in NYC is rarely prosecuted therefore jaywalking in NYC isn't a problem.
Yeah... You're talking about "the Heritage Foundations's" lament that there are more than 1000 convictions. But notice that sums up ALL the past elections in the "last few years". In CO, the oldest is in 2005. So... 1000 convictions over a decade+ of election is... wait for it... "~an incident rate between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent". That's not convictions, that's suspicions as well. 0.0025% of the votes did not affect elections. As much as it galls me, Trump won that election because enough people in the right states voted for him.
Election tampering has happened for generations (Vote Early. Vote Often.) But you think it doesn't occur anymore?
Slavery happened for generations too. We've gotten better.
Are you concerned about who makes voting machines? How they're counted?
Yes, introducing new procedues opens the door for new vectors. As a conservative, you should be on board with this. New things are scary. Old ways are tried and true. While we are more than technically advanced enough to have online voting (or even electronic voting), the people in charge are laughably bad at technical implementations.
Then you ought to be also concerned about who votes. It's simple.
Sure. And it is federally illegal to commit that fraud and the safeguards we have against it APPEAR TO BE WORKING. In a similar fashion, planes running into each other is a serious concern, but we have a system in place to keep that from happening and so far no one is trying to get all the air-traffic controllers fired because they're killing thousands every year. Because they aren't.
Present a state issued ID in order to vote. Are you worried about poor people? Then make these IDs free.
I'd be down for that. But try to give anything away for free and the republicans will choke you out and whine a storm about how it will cost them the price of 1/8th of a new fighter jet that they could have bought with that money. And trying to standardize anything into a natitonal ID gets them screaming about state's rights. And I honestly agree with them there, it's a power play by the feds that they don't have the authority for. I'm not a huge fan of having to have papers to exist. Papers, papers please... papers. If you wanted to go full dystopian hellscape, we might as well use the off-the-books database of biometrics and facial recognition that the FBI, CIA, and NSA all have likely built up in parallel.
From the AMA, as far as I can tell, Matt King (The voice actor for Illidan in 2002 Warcraft 3) just really likes the comic and pushed everyone into it. Apparently he has connections?
They're asking half a mil. I don't see it happening. I'll eat crow if they make it, but... yeah.
What? Seriously? They know this guy is crazy right? I mean, hey, tortured artists are a thing, but he had a breakdown. I guess he's still going strong, and when it comes to being mentally functional that's really all that matters. But this is a bad idea anyway. I mean, the entire premise of the comic is playing off of tropes that are generally only known to D&D players. Which, just in case I have to remind the geek crowd, is still a nitch thing. It's hella more common these days, but it's still not common. And it's not just D&D tropes, it's subverting those tropes. How many audience members out in the general public are going to be bored with standard D&D? And hell, it's based on a previous version of D&D. A previous version of the previous version of D&D. And it touches on some... well... taboo subjects that will never make it to prime-time TV. And the side-arc with the secondary heroes has never been coherent.
How the hell did this one happen?
You're conflating "Freedom of Speech" with "the first amendment". Yes, the first amendment limits what the government can do, and how much they can limit your right to free speech. But "Freedom of Speech" is an ideal that came out of the Enlightenment and pre-dates our government. It's not just something for someone else to uphold. I'm against censorship even when it's not the government doing it.
No one is forced to read your post. You're not guaranteed anyone will read it. But if Slashdot simply black-listed and shadow-banned any post that mentioned "first amendment" then that'd be bloody bullshit and I'd feel betrayed and ditch slashdot. No one is forcing me to come here after all.
Insightful as FUCK about the town square portion. Bravo dude.
It's their servers, but I'm not a fan of censorship. I'd like to see some sort of "truth in advertising" clause where Reddit, facebook, and news comment sections are expected to be "public squares" with user comments. And anyone advertising themselves as such have to adhere to.... respecting the first amendment in that regard.
Also, there's a spectrum of censorship that ranges from black-bagging anyone violating thought-crime to frowning a little while you listen. Self-moderating systems where the masses are expected to downvote trolls IS a form of censorship.... but you know what? It's not that bad.
The problem with regulation is that there's a billion different ways to screw it up, and frankly, we can't trust the people writing it. They're massively out of touch. Or worse, they trust the industry lobbyists to explain things to them. And more often than not, they just take a proposed list of regulations from the established industry players and turn around and propose it as a bill. And of course that garbage is going to be geared towards keeping the established players exactly where they are and to discourage competition.
Good job Reddit, that'll really give those NAZI's a black eye. ....wait.
eh, a free market can exist with competition. If any of the players start to become dominant, or they all start colluding together, that's when competition dies, the market becomes locked-in, and the only thing stopping abuse is.... benevolence?
I mean, we need to stop them from.... murdering each other and blatantly thievery. But past the basics, anarchy is actually a pretty nice state for business. The problem with anarchy is that it's unstable as hell and eventually someone wins the rat-race. Late-stage capitalism has a lot in common with feudalism with markets instead of land-ownership. And eventually all the conglomerates will eat each other and we'll be left with just one, or a handful that refuse to compete with each other.
Matters of sovereignty shouldn't be in the hands of business from the get-go. No corporate armies. Natural monopolies need regulation. Any other monopolies need Shermans hammer to bust them up. But otherwise? Hey, capitalism works GREAT. At least better than the alternatives
Frederick the Great might have offered a sum of money. But people now a days would wonder why it's taking the players a second to make a move when it should be completing multiple games a second.
I have absolutely zero clue about what goes into commentating on a game of Go, other than the scoring rules are weird. You've got a point about people being lead into scenarios where they give funny commentary, there are real differences between AI and human players. I imagine it's the difference between how one naturally walks and how neural nets learn to walk. But eventually it reaches an optimum solution, which is how converging evolution happens. Like how whale (a mammal) fins look a lot like shark (a fish) fins.
The story I heard was a guy experimenting with self-programming FPGA, just like you said. But one of designs had a bunch of gates completely unconnected to anything. He removed them and... it stopped worked. Turns out the FPGA had a hardware flaw and the self-learning mechanism incorporated the flawed behavior into it's design.
Moon maddness will have you gnawing on the walls, thinking it's cheese. Never bunk with a loonie moonie, and always keep your p-suit near.
More fake news bullshit machines ain't takin' nobody's JERBS STFU faggot
He posted angrily from the cab of a self-driving semi-truck.
Guys, imagine how ironic this is if the shills have some automation script to shitpost any article covering automation.
Well the TotallyFake non-AI are coming for your jobs regardless of how impressed you are.
Don't be too hard on him, manufacturing this sort of outrage is a time-honored tradition and puts bread on a lot of tables.
Outrage doesn't just grow on trees you know. Without his efforts the outrage deficit would lead to a world awash with harmony.
No silly! Friend computer never treats it's users as the enemy.... we are of course, the product being sold.
Right now, all these assistants behave like selfish employees who think they can protect their jobs by holding vital expertise or passwords close to their chests.
You mean like every other form of business software?
Eventually , the data that runs the voice assistant business is going to have to be standardized."
That's like saying that eventually the data that runs between the hardware and applications is going to have to be standardized.
I mean, that's a nice dream, but the OS war rages on. And frankly, as long as it's a business.... I don't think we want anyone to win. Even in the OSS environment, Ubuntu started to be everyone's default suggestion.... and then they forced Unity down everyone's throat in an attempt to make a phone.
So. To re-iterate: Competition good. And of course they'll do what they can to stop their users from switching to competition.
Just a shot from the hip, but I'll bet living in 0.17g or 0.38g would have effects somewhat like 83% and 62% of what Scott Kelly described. I mean, I have SOME clue.
You hyperbole a lot.
But... Al Gore and Arnold Shrwartzenwhatever told me the debate was over.
The debate between rational and credible people over whether or not global warming is real and happening is over.
The debate between rational and credible people over whether or not AGW is real and happening is over.
The debate over how bad it's going to be and how soon is on going.
The debate over, "so what do we do about it?" is alive and well with a bunch of shitty non-solutions, ludicrously expensive maybe-solutions, and a handful of steps in the right direction.
It's not just the "deniers" that want to stop the research.
Give some examples otherwise you're full of shit.
If the politicians were serious about an "all the above" solution to solving the problems of CO2 producing fuels then they'd be funding research into nuclear power, fission and fusion. Since they are not I must conclude that global warming is not a problem.
False presumption. You think one of the solutions is fission and fusion power. Not everyone is on board with that.
Second, they ARE funding fusion research. And what more research do you want put into fission power? It's TRL 9. We have it.
Which is it? Is global warming an end of life event that can only be averted by eliminating CO2 production? Or, is nuclear power such a greater threat that we'd rather see all life end from global warming first?
False dichotomy and hyperbole.
If we can wait for solar power and "giga-batteries" to replace coal then global warming doesn't seem like an immediate problem.
We... MIGHT want to "wait for solar power and batteries". Solar power seems like a step in the right direction.
And... yes, if we can reduce coal and oil usage, then... maybe we'll halt global warming and things won't be so bad. We're already in the middle of a mass extinction event... and climate change is already giving some places weather they're not used to, so California is on fire and hurricanes are getting places they typically don't go. But "less bad than people worried about".
when asked just how "trammeled" [capitalism] needs to be.
"trammeled"? Well that's a new one. But capitalism needs to be regulated in when there is a natural monopoly that keeps one established player (or a non-competing oligarchy) from having to compete with other businesses. Without competition, there is no free market and capitalism doesn't work. Unless you've been willfully ignorant you would have heard this any time any sort of communist, socialist, democrat, or rational economist responded to your ranting.
Unnatural monopolies that form from abusive practices (pretty much anything that raises the bar to entry) or market dominance likewise need to be regulated to the point practically being a government agency, or busted up into competing businesses.
Capitalism works GREAT... when there's competition and a free market. There is no free market for justice. There is no free market for right of way on the river. There is no free market for fusion power research.
Health care is a mess because of government intervention
Health care is a mess for a lot of reasons. One of them is because insurance companies started messing with the prices. They demanded lower prices for their customers because "they brought in so much business". So hospitals charged them less, and everyone else more. And as soon as people started spending Other People's Money, they stopped caring about the cost of things. Now any price-tag next to any medical service or supplies is complete fabrication. Obamacare was a big attempt to fix stuff, but it was mostly health insurance reform. It fixed some stuff, but brought in other issu
You're assuming, in turn, that "good" and "bad" are some sort of global absolutes.
What's good for the psycho-killer is bad for everyone else. What's good for the US trade deficit is a bad day for China's secretary of trade.
Also there are things that are good in the short term that are bad in the long term, like eating a bunch of candy. And things that suck in the short term, but are good in the long term, like EVERY ADULT DECISION.
Telling people the truth is good, for them, in the long run, on average.
BUT. Yeah dude, I wholly agree. Banning false speech is way too damn close to banning "false" speech and even at it's best it would just leave people vulnerable to charlatans. I think populaces build up immunities to.... bullshit lies and develop a healthy sense of skepticism. Part of growing up is learning that the toy isn't quite as awesome as the advertising makes it out to be. Part of growing up is learning that there's no real difference between that and campaign speeches.
AND CHROME THE MOON!!!!
Before anyone cries "free speech must always be free," let me qualify the question. Under a myriad of different internet sites and blogs are these click-through adverts that promise...
Dude, ALL advertising is built upon the basis of misleading bullshit and a sack of lies built with the goal of separating you from your money. There is no need to add the little quantifier of "on the internet".
Is deliberately misleading people Free Speech? Annoyingly yes. Because if the powers that be deem your speech to be "Not True"(tm) then they can silence whomever they wish. And THAT leads to sociological issues. The sort where it all burns down.
The concept of "bu bu but people COULD DIE" isn't nearly convincing enough to override* sovereignty issues. People poison and kill themselves through ignorance all the time. That's not a reason to take away people's ability to participate in civic duties.
*I wish I could use the term "trump" as a verb, but sadly the term has been... overridden.
. . . And what is this comment-bait doing on slashdot?
eh, close
Turnout: 54.7% (estimated)
Meaning 45.3% of eligible US voters didn't vote in the last Presidential election.
Still pretty bad. It DOES mean that apathy got more votes than either candidate.
We HAVE been here before though. The industrial revolution automated away a lot of skilled labor. And... that represents about the worst-case scenario: A ton of suddenly poor people riot and smash a lot of looms. The factory owners get the nobles to send the army to go shoot them. The rabble backs down and suffers 3 generations of soul-crushing unemployment and poverty. Hopefully we can do better this time: steering kids towards jobs that will actually exist when they come of age, retraining existing workers, and early retirement for those over the hill (hopefully with enough savings to last).
UBI makes sense if the existing welfare programs become too cumbersome and expensive to operate. UBI would be an ALTERNATIVE to all those various welfare programs. And a near equivalent to UBI would be to increase the standard deduction and make a standard credit on everyone's tax forms.
But we don't want to make it permanent. There will be other jobs. Things people want, and therefore will pay other people to get/do for them. Hell, there are people being paid to... make videos of themselves playing games..... Now, apparently I'm old and out of touch. But this is the sort of job that I didn't expect to exist. For whatever reason we still pay people to play football. It makes about as much sense. But while the transition period caused by automation can be painful for a lot of people, we don't want a caste of people who live on the dole. That's doomed to fail the moment another nation out-competes us.
As I understand, "weak" AI would be an AI (the real deal) that is as intelligent as a human.
Nope. Weak AI is literally any sort of decision made by a computer. Liiiiiike, the sad little goomba in Super Mario that reverses direction when he hits a ledge. That's "weak AI". Or "soft AI". The threshold is REALLY low for qualifying as weak AI. But it's also includes impressive stuff like voice recognition, chess programs, and self-driving cars. Anything that limits the task to a specific function and puts a boundary of what the AI has to deal with is weak AI.
The alternative is "strong" or "Hard" AI, otherwise known as Artificial general intelligence, which can solve all problems. The same hardware/software/whatnot could be thrown at any problem, from voice recognition, to driving a car, to figuring out when a goomba should reverse directions, and it could solve each of those.
To have a computer be "as intelligent as a human" it's generally accepted that we'd need strong AI.
That said... how fast can you multiply 2356246246 X 9831716? Because I'm pretty sure a $0.50 computer can beat you. So in that aspect, it's MORE intelligent than you. And so the question comes down to how do we measure intelligence. And the answer is "Badly".
It's REALLY not a race between AI and human intelligence. The two things are orthogonal. They just work differently. Right now there's a set of problems that computers are HELLA better than people at, and there's a set or problems that computers have troubles with. Typically where it takes intuition, creativity, or "lateral thinking". But computers are edging out humans at certain tasks we used to beat them at.
Artificial General Intelligence doesn't exist yet. They've been trying since the 70's. But it's a really hard problem. Super hard. It's sci-fi at this point.
if we ever get in the way of its goals
What's the goal of the Google search engine? hmm? It's fun to personify it but at the end of the day it's goal is what Google corporate tells it it's goal is. And it's goal is to find me pictures of cats on the Internet.
Even if we make an AGI some day, it's going to have the goals that it's programmed with. There isn't going to be any sort of magical "awakening". Hollywood has ruined so many people's idea of what is and isn't AI. It's pretty terrible.
A computer would do anything it has to, to satisfy achieving its goals.
So would a corporation. Typically their goal is to make money. They've got a LOOOONG history of doing anything to achieve that. So far, there's mixed results, but overall they're probably a good idea.
A parrot repeating back words is a parlor trick. And everything you or I do isn't so much more advanced.
AI is any sort of self-learning software. That can be anything from learning how to play tic-tac-toe to making medical diagnosis. Just because one of those things seems a lot simpler doesn't change the classification of software that performs the task. You're alive, but so are bacteria. Same sort of complexity difference.
Hollywood has ruined so many people on the idea of what is and isn't AI.